I received a comment today from a subscriber to one of my blogs who mentioned he had found great difficulty getting an ANTI CAGW piece published. It got me wondering if freedom of the press is already long gone and dead. I would imagine many would say ‘yes it’s dead already.”

I have written a published article debunking most of the global warming claims as scientifically impossible. I have sent that article to the top 100 newspapers in the US and was either ignored, they refused to even read it much as less publish it or was told if I had a pro global warming story they would gladly publish it. This in total contradiction to published canons of journalistic integrity which require presenting both sides of a story accurately and fairly.

A few days ago over atWUWT, in the article that exposes the fraudulent activities of the IPCC, Anthony Watts draws to our attention tothe IAC’s 2010 reportwhich heavily criticizes the work and reports put out by the IPCC. We are told:

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

To my way of thinking this also is how the Main Stream Media has behaved. For some obscure reason they have totally neglected the principal that both sides of the story ought to be heard. Instead they too seem to have sided with the alarmist perspective which is favored by politicians.

But you might tell me this is ‘science not politics’, and once I may have agreed with you. Not any longer though!

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

So what influence does politics have on the news media? I would have to suspect that if the Government of the day says they are following the IPCC reports, and taking them as ‘scientific gospel’ you would be extremely foolish indeed to publish anti government material. You would also be rather foolish, as a scientific organisation, attempting to publish articles that showed the error of the Global Warming Theory, after all you would be relying on the Government of the day to fund your continued research and those dollars are rather scarce in some areas.

For example if you disagree with the Australian Government in the future you had better watch out.

Former Federal Court judgeRay Finkelstein’s recommendation for a government-funded regulator to oversee the media in Australia has ignited a fierce debate about press freedom.

Ray Finkelstein QC argues an independent body with the power to force media outlets to issue apologies and correct mistakes is the best way to preserve the media’s freedom and integrity.

One wonders also if blogs such as thiswill be subject to scrutiny and possible limitation of freedom of speech.

But let’s get back to the Main Stream Media’s reluctance to publish articles that are anti the AGW theory. It cannot be because the articles will not sell papers. I believe a good argument or opposing points of view would invigorate the public debate – could sell more papers and magazines. Could the editors or owners have been silenced in some way? I would speculate YES. In Australia the Gillard-Green alliance has gone full steam ahead, rather recklessly too, implementing a Carbon Tax and preparing to close down coal fired power stations, causing the cost of living to rise exponentially, and impoverishing its citizens in the process. However you won’t find too many of the large daily papers reporting it that way. So again I ask what has silenced the media?

All this has been done, based on the fraudulent reports out of the IPCC. Now that they (IPCC) have admitted serious changes need to be made, and that there are real problems with their earlier reports and findings, do you think our media will go out of their way to report this? Surely you have seen the headlines? NO…… why goodness you must have missed that edition of your daily newspaper!

A last thought is flittering through my overworked mind: Perhaps the Government will now see that politics and science are incompatible? NO – then perhaps they will rescind the Carbon Dioxide Tax immediately if not sooner? NO – then perhaps pigs will fly over Parliament House in Canberra……. What, they have already done that and no one took any notice – what will it take then to get them to see they made a huge mistake… rhetorical I know, but hey we do have a Federal Election in 2013.

My ideas usually come not at my desk writing but in the midst of living. Anais Nin

4 Responses to Ponderings about Freedom in the Media

I guess today the ‘Media Moguls’ have almost had their day. With the world wide web available, as long as it is not controlled by those who like to do that is the final resort for the public to be able to speak. Even the Media Moguls still have access to the Internet. Of course the USA shut down “Wikileaks” by virtually silencing Julian Assange, but that does not mean that other sites haven’t sprung up to replace them. The internet has replaced the pamphleteers of old and is much harder for governments to control. I recall that a former Vice President of the US Al Gore stated that he would shut down the Internet, he is no longer Vice President of the US, and the Net is still with us. So now he is solving ‘the climate crisis instead”. How is that working out for you Al? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aatTIJk0wUhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5To2H2webMg&feature=related

TRue!!!
I once knew a worker at a major newspaper, think it was the Herald, I was told that the newspaper receives on a regular basis, directives on what to highlight in the news, and what to play down, and would even suggest the most important issue to discuss…but then again, if you want to control the world, start by controlling banks and media, already so obvious in television and newspapers…………

Monopoly! short and simple. Editors lost control of all media back in Bob Hawkes day. We should all be good little citizens, eat, drink, think and believe the way the media tells us to like good little children.
Keep your brains to yourself and educate your kids to think for themselves.